Mike Bordelon, et al v. Baldwin County, AL, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13958
____________________
MIKE BORDELON,
BREEZY SHORES, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
BALDWIN COUNTY, AL,
BALDWIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR,
Defendants-Appellants,
BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 4 PLANNING
AND ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
USCA11 Case: 22-13958 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/26/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13958
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00057-C
____________________
Before W ILSON , G RANT, and L AGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case concerns a zoning dispute between Baldwin
County’s zoning leadership and Mike Bordelon, a property owner
within the county. Baldwin County’s Zoning Department prohib-
ited Plaintiffs-Appellees Mike Bordelon and Breezy Shores, LLC
(collectively, Plaintiffs) from constructing a three-story duplex as
originally permitted. After the local Board of Adjustment denied
Plaintiffs’ request for a variance, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in
the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, which was removed to the
Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division. Relevant to this
appeal, Plaintiffs challenged the zoning decision pursuant to Ala-
bama’s vested rights jurisprudence and the Fifth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution. The district court1 granted Plaintiffs’ request
for a variance and concluded that (1) Baldwin County temporarily
took Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation, (2) Plaintiffs
1 U.S. District Judge William H. Steele referred all proceedings to and ordered
entry of judgment with U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady in accord-
ance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 after all
parties consented to Judge Cassady’s jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 22-13958 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/26/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-13958 Opinion of the Court 3
held a vested right to construct their duplex as originally permitted,
and (3) as a result, Baldwin County is both enjoined from prohibit-
ing the duplex’s originally-permitted construction and ordered to
pay $746,289.00 in just compensation.
On appeal, Baldwin County argues that Plaintiffs lack vested
rights under Alabama law because, among other things, the district
court’s interpretations of the zoning ordinance contravene its plain
language and deference is due to the County’s interpretations. Sec-
ond, the County maintains that its acts do not amount to a tempo-
rary regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Company v.
City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). Third, and in the alternative,
Baldwin County contends that the district court erred in its just
compensation calculations which resulted in an unjust windfall.
After careful consideration of the record and the parties’
briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible
error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s reasoned decision in favor of Plaintiffs.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-13958 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/26/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --